If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So long as the left can try and throw mud at W they are obfuscating the horrible goofs that Osama is making, like being tied up with ACORN, Van Jones and Cass Sunstien.

Quite the contrary...if you haven't noticed, Obama is getting plenty of crap from his base, who is pissed that he has essentially carried on with Bush's policies. Gitmo still open, troops still in Iraq and A-stan, Patriot act renewal, cutting deals with Pharma.... Reasonable people on both sides of the spectrum are trying to ignore all the detractors being flung by those who's ONLY goal is to undermine Obama and seize power, after having lost it in a democratic election. That may work, and it may win back some of the other issues for conservatives, but it will open the door for similar behavior and attacks down the road.

So long as the left can try and throw mud at W they are obfuscating the horrible goofs that Osama is making, like being tied up with ACORN, Van Jones and Cass Sunstien.

Bob, what did I say that was throwing mud at GWB (in this thread)? Where I have a problem is with "philosophical" arguments that are nothing more than thinly veiled personal attacks in search of legitimacy. I also object to gross misrepresentation for political purposes.

WND and all of its propaganda mirrors are guilty of both. The headlines on the WND and related articles implied that this was a new article discovered by WND staff and written to support an expansion of power for Obama. In fact, it was an article written in defense of an expansion of power that had already happened under Bush and reflected, when it was written in 2006, a position that Sunstein held and stated publicly when Obama was in the Illinois state legislature. It is not a liberal position, it is a conservative one, or was until conservatives decided they could use it to attack a liberal. In my mind that is blatant hypocrisy.

You just can't get any further out there than the the group the Pres has surrounded himself with. Heck Van Jones may have been the moderate in the bunch. This is exactly what you get when a bunch of college profs run a country, long on theory short on know how.

"The longer you let a dog go in the wrong direction the more they think they are going in the right direction" Don Remien.

Because most things happen in a continuum despite the desires of the right to pretend that history,if it is "good". is the sole property of the right and that everything that is "bad" is the sole property of liberals.

So...in that same continuum, the desire of the left (is) to pretend that history, if it is "bad," is the sole property of the right and that everything that is "good" is the sole property of liberals....

That is as outrageous as Bush's similar beliefs. It should be noted that Sunstein is writing about an 1803 Supreme Court precedent and citing powers that he believes should rest with the President, whether that President be Obama, Bush, or someone as yet unknown.

In fact, it was an article written in defense of an expansion of power that had already happened under Bush and reflected, when it was written in 2006, a position that Sunstein held and stated publicly when Obama was in the Illinois state legislature. It is not a liberal position, it is a conservative one, or was until conservatives decided they could use it to attack a liberal. In my mind that is blatant hypocrisy.

If it was "wrong thinking" then, it's still wrong thinking. Since O was opposed to this concept before, it is interesting that he should choose Sunstein as one of his upper-level advisors?

If O has changed his position on the expansion of POTUS power, then criticism of the change of position, without explanation, is valid. It surely makes him appear to change positions simply because it suits his own uses. Just as hypocritical as anyone else who might change positions as it suited their own purposes.

Personally, the Constitution provides for 3 branches particularly to keep any one branch from having all the power, so it is wise to keep an eye on any one branch intruding into the area of another branch. There are multiple SCOTUS justices, and multiple powerful legislators ... but POTUS power is wielded by just one individual. That could mean that expansion of POTUS power, except in events of national security emergency, would be more potentially dangerous.

I agree, Jeff, it doesn't matter who the POTUS is. Clearly, not all (few?) of our Presidents have had the wisdom to handle power like George Washington did.

Also agree that history is a continuum. Which means we should get off the shtick of how to parse blame; figure out how to get from where we are to where we want to be; and pay close attention to what has not previously worked & look for new approaches.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.